Tim Johnson sours on more Iran sanctions

Let diplomacy work, Senate banking chairman says

Dec. 13, 2013

Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D.

Written by

Johnson’s statement

Sen. Tim Johnson’s opening statement for today’s Senate Banking Committee hearing on Iran, as prepared for delivery: “I call this hearing to order. Yesterday, all Senators had a chance to hear directly from Secretaries Lew and Kerry and senior intelligence officials on the first step nuclear agreement reached in Geneva between the P5+1 and Iran. Today we will delve into the agreement in greater detail, assess prospects for a final agreement, and explore the likely effects of Congressional action on new sanctions legislation at this time, to which the President and his Secretary of State strongly object. “I have talked with various members of the Committee about these issues, and ensured that all members have had opportunities to be briefed repeatedly by Secretaries Kerry and Lew, and the intelligence community, on the ongoing Geneva negotiations. Let me be clear. I support strong sanctions, and authored many of the US sanctions currently in place. I have negotiated a new bipartisan sanctions bill with my Ranking Member that could be finalized and moved quickly if Iran fails to comply with the terms of the first step agreement in Geneva, or if negotiations collapse. Sanctions have been an effective tool of coercive diplomacy, crippling Iran’s economy, sharply curtailing its oil revenues, and helping to persuade the Iranian people to vote for new leadership. “It now appears that some of Iran’s leaders have recognized that the only way to relieve the economic pressure and lessen Iran’s international isolation is to reach agreement with the West to halt its illicit nuclear activities. Time will tell if that is true – but only if Congress is willing to provide that time. Some have argued that acting on a bill now, as long as it does not become effective in 6 months, gives the administration additional leverage in negotiations. The President disagrees, arguing that Congressional action on new sanctions would be taken as a sign of bad faith by our P5+1 partners and by Iran, and could erode or even unravel the sanctions regime. “The history of our relationship with Iran is littered with missed opportunities, on both sides. I want to assess the formal analysis the Committee is to receive today from the Director of National Intelligence on the effects on negotiations and on our P5+1 partners of Congressional action on new sanctions, but I agree that the administration’s request for a diplomatic pause is reasonable. A new round of US sanctions now could rupture the unity of the international coalition against Iran’s nuclear program. Existing sanctions will continue to bite, and to bite hard. Commentators from left to right and all of my colleagues involved in this effort have acknowledged this; it is not a matter of controversy. “Now that Iran has come to the table and entered into this first step agreement, I believe this may well be the last best chance to resolve this crisis by diplomacy, and so the President is absolutely right to fully test Iran’s leaders. And I will be vigilant to ensure the Joint Action Plan is strictly enforced. I have requested, along with Chairmen Levin and Feinstein, regular briefings on compliance from the intelligence community. In the meantime, we should not do anything counterproductive that might shatter Western unity on this issue – we should make sure that if the talks fail, it was Iran that caused their failure. We should not give Iran, the P5+1 countries or other nations a pretext to lay responsibility for their collapse on us. Ultimately, while some of us might differ on tactics, it is clear we all share the same goal: to ensure that Iran does not achieve a nuclear weapon, and to do that diplomatically if possible, while recognizing that other alternatives remain on the table. I now turn to Ranking Member Crapo for his opening statement.”

More

ADVERTISEMENT

As nuclear negotiations between Iran and major nations progress slowly toward a possible deal, one of South Dakota’s senators is playing a major role.

Sen. Tim Johnson, as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, has jurisdiction over many of the financial sanctions imposed on Iran, a Middle Eastern country that has been developing a nuclear program. Because Iran has refused international demands to cease enriching uranium, which many countries fear could be turned into nuclear weapons, it’s under crippling international sanctions.

Iran recently agreed with the United States, China, Russia, the European Union and other world powers on a temporary deal to roll back part of its nuclear program in return for the lifting of some sanctions.

Now Congress is divided between two approaches. Many members and some outside groups say Congress should pass additional sanctions to force Iran to make more concessions at the negotiating table. President Obama’s administration, on the other hand, says Congress should hold off on new sanctions to give more time for diplomatic negotiations.

Johnson, at least for now, is siding with Obama.

“I agree that the administration’s request for a diplomatic pause is reasonable,” Johnson said Thursday in his prepared opening statement at a banking committee hearing on Iran sanctions. “A new round of U.S. sanctions now could rupture the unity of the international coalition against Iran’s nuclear program. Existing sanctions will continue to bite, and to bite hard.”

Given Johnson’s power to set the agenda of the banking committee, that makes new sanctions significantly less likely to pass the Senate. It’s not impossible, though — other committees could advance a sanctions bill, such as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, whose chairman, Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., is an advocate of more sanctions.

(Page 2 of 3)

Iran’s penalties include embargoes on arms and oil and the freezing of billions of dollars in Iranian assets.

This week, Secretary of State John Kerry urged Congress to wait before passing new sanctions.

“We are asking you to give our negotiators and our experts the time and the space to do their jobs,” Kerry told the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on Tuesday.

Not everyone agrees, including Johnson’s fellow South Dakotans in Congress.

“I am concerned with the level of trust we have put in a country that has historically failed to be a reliable partner,” said Rep. Kristi Noem, in a statement. “By easing existing economic sanctions, the Iranian regime is given fiscal flexibility, allowing them to put more money and resources into their government and potentially into their nuclear development program as well.”

Noem’s statement also noted she had met recently with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a critic of the recent deal with Iran, to discuss the country and other Middle Eastern issues.

In a statement, Sen. John Thune said he wants “to see a diplomatic solution that would prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon” but that this process should include “a clear message that if Iran does not keep its end of the deal, additional sanctions will immediately follow.”

Thune advocated passing more sanctions with a trigger attached, so they wouldn’t go into effect unless Iran went back on the terms of its recent deal.

“If Iran is negotiating in good faith, it should not be concerned by the threat of additional sanctions,” Thune said.

Johnson said he wants to keep monitoring Iran closely but is concerned that more sanctions — even those that don’t take effect right away — could give Iran an excuse to walk away from talks.

“We should not do anything counter-productive that might shatter Western unity on this issue — we should make sure that if the talks fail, it was Iran that caused their failure,” he said. “We should not give Iran, the (other major) countries or other nations a pretext to lay responsibility for their collapse on us.”

(Page 3 of 3)

Some experts on Iran back Johnson and the White House.

“Sanctions are not an end in and of themselves. Sanctions are a means to get Iran to negotiate in good faith and start making concessions on its nuclear program,” said Colin Kahl, a professor of security studies at Georgetown University and the former deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East in Obama’s first term. “What we’ve seen is that the current level of sanctions are sufficient for that. So there’s no need to increase sanctions.”

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee would prefer more sanctions.

“Tough sanctions legislation passed by Congress and vigorous diplomacy pursued by the administration have brought Iran to negotiations,” said a statement from the lobbying group concerned Iran could attack Israel with nuclear weapons. “Congress must ... legislate additional sanctions, so that Iran will face immediate consequences should it renege on its commitments or refuse to negotiate an acceptable final agreement.”